Markers of consciousness in infants: Towards a ‘cluster‐based’ approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As recently as the 1980s, it was not uncommon for paediatric surgeons to operate on infants without anaesthesia. Today, the same omission would be considered criminal malpractice, and there is an increased concern with the possibility of consciousness in the earliest stage of human infancy. This concern reflects a more general trend that has characterised science since the early 1990s of taking consciousness seriously. While this attitude shift has opened minds towards the possibility that our earliest experiences predate our first memories, convincing demonstrations of infant consciousness remain challenging given that infants cannot report on their experiences. Furthermore, while many behavioural and neural markers of consciousness that do not rely on language have been validated in adults, no one specific marker can be confidently translated to infancy. For this reason, we have proposed the 'cluster-based' approach, in which a consensus of evidence across many markers, all pointing towards the same developmental period, could be used to argue convincingly for the presence of consciousness. CONCLUSION: We review the most promising markers for early consciousness, arguing that consciousness is likely to be in place by 5 months of age if not earlier.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".